Loveridge v The Queen - [2014] HCATrans 285

[2014] HCATrans 285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S216 of 2014

B e t w e e n -
KIERAN LOVERIDGE
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GAGELER J
KEANE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2014, AT 11.51 AM

MR P.R. BOULTEN, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS G.A. BASHIR, SC, for the applicant. (instructed by Aboriginal Legal Service)

MR J.H. PICKERING, SC: I appear for the respondent, your Honours. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW))

GAGELER J: Mr Boulten.

MR BOULTEN: Your Honours, the application relates to three questions that are set out at page 108 of the application book. They relate to questions of general importance for the administration of justice. The first matter I will deal with relates to the second question and that concerns an issue that relates to how a Court of Criminal Appeal deals with protean offences such as manslaughter and, for that matter, assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the way that they use past decisions of courts in relation to similar matters.

If I could take the Court to paragraph 222 of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal on page 86 of the application book, the court there expressed the opinion that the sentencing decisions that the sentencing judge had before him and which he considered:

represented nothing more than sentencing decisions in cases depending upon their particular facts and the circumstances of the offender in question. The sentencing decisions referred to at first instance did not demonstrate a range of sentences for so‑called one‑punch manslaughter –

At paragraph 225, the court went on to say that:

the sentencing decisions provided to his Honour in this case did not provide a range of sentences for so‑called one‑punch manslaughter cases.

There is, in truth, no range of sentences for offences of manslaughter which may be said to have a single common component relating to the mechanism of death . . . To the same effect, there is no range of sentences for manslaughter offences said to have been committed by use of –

a weapon of some sort. In the next paragraph they said that:

The myriad circumstances of manslaughter offences render it unhelpful to speak in terms of a range ‑ ‑ ‑

In those circumstances, it seems that the Court of Criminal Appeal has held that there is actually no range for manslaughter with a common component and no range for any particular form of manslaughter, and that then raises an important question in the context of a Crown appeal where manifest inadequacy is contended for and found, what does the court have regard to to determine that the range was not reached?

GAGELER J: In the circumstances of the individual case it would be said against you.

MR BOULTEN: Yes, but that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Loveridge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Loveridge v The Queen [2014] HCATrans 285
Case: [2014] HCATrans 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Loveridge v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for murder. The appellant, Loveridge, had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal to the High Court raised significant questions regarding the application of the law of murder and the proper direction to be given to a jury in such cases.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law when directing the jury on the elements of murder, specifically concerning the mental state required for a conviction. The appeal focused on the interpretation of the *mens rea* for murder, particularly in circumstances where the accused's actions might have been influenced by intoxication or a perceived threat. The court was required to determine if the jury's verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory due to any misdirection or failure to properly instruct them on the relevant legal principles.

Gageler and Keane JJ, in their joint judgment, analysed the relevant provisions of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) and established case law concerning the offence of murder. They affirmed that murder requires proof of an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The Court clarified that while intoxication may be relevant to the question of whether the requisite intention was formed, it does not, of itself, negate the intention. The judges emphasised the importance of the jury carefully considering all the evidence, including any evidence of intoxication, when determining whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving the necessary *mens rea* beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found no error in the trial judge's directions and dismissed the appeal.

Orders